On April 18, U.S. Attorney General William Barr released Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the probe into "Russian meddling" in the 2016 presidential election. The report cleared President Donald Trump and his campaign team of allegations that they conspired with the Russian government in that meddling. But on the question of "obstruction of justice," Mueller punted in an eerily familiar way.

Return with me briefly to those thrilling days of yesteryear. Specifically, July 5, 2016. As I wrote then:

"FBI director James Comey spoke 2,341 words explaining his decision not to recommend criminal charges over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to transmit, receive and store classified information during her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State. He could have named that tune in four words: 'Because she's Hillary Clinton.' Comey left no doubt whatsoever that Clinton and her staff broke the law ..."

Mueller's report likewise cites evidence of multiple attempts by the president to obstruct his investigation. "[T]he President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels," he writes. "These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony."

But before the evidence, the punt: "[W]e determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions' in violation of 'the constitutional separation of powers.'"

Translation: Anyone else who did what Donald Trump did would find himself buried under obstruction of justice charges. But Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

The difference between Comey's treatment of Clinton and Mueller's treatment of Trump is that Clinton's immunity to laws meant for mere mortals was unofficial — based on her prominence as a ranking member of the political class — while Trump's similar immunity is a formal function of his holding a particular office.

Did Trump "obstruct justice?" I'm no lawyer, but Mueller's report indicates that Trump abused his power to attempt to impede the investigation. That sounds like obstruction to me.

Does it matter that the investigators found no underlying crime after overcoming the obstructions? Some people think so. I don't.

If you were accused of a "missing body" murder you didn't commit, and asked someone to give you a false alibi (because you were actually in bed with someone other than your spouse and didn't want THAT known), or gave a false tip to the police, you'd face charges independent of the underlying crime even if the supposed victim turned up alive.

Why? Because (in theory at least) a criminal investigation pursues the truth of the matter, not just a particular suspect or verdict.

Trump's conduct was aimed at frustrating that pursuit of truth. Immune or not, that's wrong.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).

Humans of Greenville

Op Ed

President Trump lost a preliminary round Monday in his court battle with House Democrats when a federal judge ruled his accounting firm must obey a subpoena to provide his financial records to Congress.

Trump called the 41-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta "crazy" and said he planned…

A group of health care stakeholders met in Raleigh last week for a first-ever “listen and learn” session focused on two questions: How much should we spend on health care and how should these dollars be advocated?

Joe Biden is aiming his campaign pitch directly at the sensible center of American politics. "Compromise itself is not a dirty word," he asserted during his announcement speech in Philadelphia. "Consensus is not a weakness. It's how our founders down the road thought we would govern."

As a…

Compromise path to good government/Op-Ed/2019/05/23/THE-VIRTUES-OF-COMPROMISE.html11

From now on, the Trump-Russia affair — the investigation that dominated the first years of Donald Trump's presidency — will be divided into two parts: before and after the release of Robert Mueller's report. Before the special counsel's findings were made public last month, the…

Last week, North Carolina became the first state to file a lawsuit against Juul Labs Inc., maker of a top-selling electronic cigarette, contending that it targets underage youths with its products. Others may follow.

The last decade has seen a rise in the use of electronic cigarettes, or e-cigs,…

North Carolina appropriates less taxpayer money to state colleges and universities in real terms than it did before the onset of the Great Recession. Tuition has risen markedly and now accounts for a larger share of total revenue. But our state remains one of the most generous in the country when…

North Carolina ranks high in college funding/Op-Ed/2019/05/20/State-ranks-high-in-college-funding.html11

How many people have the ability to manipulate the stock market? One, and this isn’t a trick question. We’re watching how President Trump’s statements about slapping tariffs on China one day, or the great headway he’s making on a China trade deal the next day can tank the…

Is there an inside trader inside the White House?/Op-Ed/2019/05/20/Is-there-an-inside-trader-inside-the-White-House.html11